Looks like four more years of Rallos Zek, the Warlord.

John Kerry, pretty upset about losing his bid to become the next President, decides to drown his sorrows away at the local pub. As he walks into the bar, the bartender looks up at him and asks, "Why the long face?"

I knew all along W was going to win. That's why I didn't take it as harshly as some of my fellow "Pro-Kerry" folks did. I was very upset, however, to find out that the exit polling results showed that the Bush supporters top reason for voting Bush was Values. What a disgusting thing now, that a certain set of people are setting values for the rest of us. It deeply upsets me.

::Sighs:: Well, only four more years...

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT IN '08!

WTF? I mean, seriously... So if Kerry was president, he wouldn't be setting values for the rest of us either? It wasn't a contest of he-with-values and he-without. It was two candidates of two different sets of values - and America felt that Bush's set of values was something they'd rather have decisions based apon than those of Senator Kerry. People said they voted for Bush because of his values - not that he has any and Kerry does not.

Kerry was such a weak canidate - too chaotic, basing his opinion on what would get him the greatest popularity. Look at his religion (a typical source of values for most Americans) - he eagerly promoted ideals that were against his belief system. Why? For votes. He's for the war, until it starts turning up bad - then he's against the war.

At least with President Bush you know what you'll have for the next four years, because he'll always take the same stance. Kerry in the presidency would be dangerous - we'd never know what to expect.

Besides, his campaining manager really lost him the election. All his votes came from the same democratic states as the last election. For the democrats to have a remote chance of winning the next election they need to sway some republic voters over, but they won't do that with such a blantant opposer of traditional-values such as either Kerry or Hillary.

I would rather have a president with enough foresight to change their mind on something when the people want it then someone who blindly tells the world to fuck off... also would rather have someone that would do what the majority wants, even if it is against their beliefs, that shows stronger character then FUCK U GAY BUTTFUCKING ABORTIONIST POOR PEOPLE - u got 0wned don't bother replying.

When has a certain set of people not set the values for society?

when I masturbated into the primordial ooze

oh wait I did, you lose I win hahaha

BS obviously, is a noob with no class, ?niw i

You are the n00b. BS pwns. Go die kkthx

lol, quote from my avatar I made for him....

ur a noob with no class by saying I am a noob with no class nigero

wtb looc uoy ekam ton seod sdrawkcab gnipyt

when you like, can make a real argument, and like, use an insult that isn't 100% washed with tide for colors then step up otherwise learn your place and put the cock back in your mouth

I'm not as much pro-Bush as I am anti-Kerry. Of course I don't agree with a lot of the things bush has done. But I believe that he was the better choice for our presidency. While yes, he may be a stubborn jackass sometimes, Kerry changes whenever the wind blows and I felt that Bush's positions were better. Dealing with abortion, I feel that it should be banned (unless someone is raped) because I'm sick of skank whores going around having sex all the time and not having to deal with anything. FUCK THEM. Welfare also (even though I don't think this was a huge issue) I see people down the street from me on welfare who have cells phones and stuff. It's total bullshit. Anyway, enough ranting, Kerry sucked balls as a candidate.

about to bring out some hate in me.. But, I'll hold back for now. The simple fact is, government has NO right to be regulating peoples private lives. It was set up to regulate disputes between two or more people within public life..

If thats so do you think there should be no welfare at all?